SHIVA BALAK CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsei for the petitioners and the counsei appearing for the State.

(2.) PETITIONERS Sheo Balak Chowdhury (petitioner No. 1) and Deo Nandan Sharma. (petitioner No. 2) were functioning as members of the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC). The tenure of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 on the post of members is to expire on 19.8.2008 and 07.8.2008 respectively. In between the year, 2005 -06, Cabinet Vigilance lodged three F.i.Rs. being Vigilance P.S. Case No. 19/05, 10/06 & 12/06 in which both these petitioners are named as accused and facing trial. On the basis of the F.I.Rs. instituted against the petitioner, His Excellency Governor of Bihar made a request to his Excellency Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, the President of India as he then was, proposing to make a reference to the Hon 'bie Supreme Court under Article 317(1) of the Constitution of India for removal of the petitioners. The Hon ble President of India made a reference to the Hon 'bie Supreme Court and the same has been numbered as Reference Case No. 01 of 2007. Date has been fixed in the second week of March, 2008 for consideration of Dr. R.S. Singh 's application and also for preliminary hearing as well as for framing of charge. Dr. R.S. Singh, one of the members of the Bihar Public Service Commission has filed an interlocutory application stating that he had retired much earlier of the reference and therefore, reference does not survive so far he is concerned.This application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the Notification No. 1385 dated 5.2.2008 issued under the signature of Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna whereby both the petitioners have been suspended in view of the powers conferred under Article 317(2) of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE Notification has been challenged on the ground that it is unconstitutional and against the law settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Special Reference Case No. 01 of 1997 reported h 2000(4) S.C.C. 309 [: 2000(2) PLJR (SC)74].